Guide Dog Killed

[Zhou Xuanyao]

If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic.

Then slow down. Instead of being committed to disagreeing with me, try a commitment to thinking carefully before you post. Those statements do not contradict each other.

As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

Doesn't interest me what others do. I evaluate what's said based on it's merit, not on how much support it draws from others.

[Salukifan]

If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic.

Then slow down. Instead of being committed to disagreeing with me, try a commitment to thinking carefully before you post. Those statements do not contradict each other.

As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

Doesn't interest me what others do. I evaluate what's said based on it's merit, not on how much support it draws from others.

How bloody rude are you?

How about you try a commitment to not patronising people you disagree with Lo Pan and take a break from dismissive comments designed to make you sound more intellecutal than others. It would be a nice change for you.

You chose to start this "argument" by marking smart arse comments about my posts and you've disagreed with every point I've made (pretty rudely) while refusing to engage with facts, Why don't the two statements conflict?? How about some explanation rather than yet another assertion that a poster is not your equal.

Comprehension is not evaluation. The fact you may not understand my points doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you "right". Merit has jack sh*t to do with it if you're misunderstanding me and somewhat deliberately it seems.

If you cannot see the conflict between this

it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another

and this:

an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply.

then I give up. How can no probabilities apply to the characteristics of an individual dog of an individual breed if some traits occur more commonly in some breeds than others??

That's it from me. It's clear you're more interested in mocking me than explaining your postion.

Sayonara

Edited August 16, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Are You Serious Jo]

This whole thing just highlights how hard it is to manage these irresponsible owners. It is obvious that it is an owner issue, but how do you legislate against potential breaches of law without the civil liberties people jumping up and down. If the troglodytes who don't give a toss about others owned yorkies it wouldn't be an issue, but they choose breeds that have been selectively bred for DA. I'm confident that I can wrestle away a small breed if it attacks my dogs but if an out of control bull breed grabs my dog good chance my dogs will be dead and me possibly hospitalised.

It may not suit you argument lo pan but fact is purebred dogs do have predictable inherited traits. I love herding, so there is no way I would consider any breed that wasn't bred for herding. Would I at greyhounds to move sheep, no, because none will have the behavioural traits needed to do that job. Trust me lo pan, as someone who has taught at uni level in this area haredown is 100% correct. If you can find any evidence other than your personal belief I'll consider your position, but science and all of the dog world disagrees with you.

[Diva]

I agree with Rev Jo. When it comes to behaviour, breed matters.

It isn't all that matters. But it matters.

[sandgrubber]

Whoa! You guys are talking past one another.

Lo Pan states: "Suppose I had 10 lollies in a jar, 7 were blue, 3 were green. Suppose I were to stick my hand in the jar and retrieve 1 lolly at random, my chance of selecting a blue one is 7/10. After having selected the lolly and describing it, it could be said that I have a 1/1 chance of having a lolly with the characteristics particular to it."

The point is that each breed is its own bag of lollies. If blue is DA and green is dog friendly, some breeds will be 7 blue to 3 green, while other breeds are the reverse. Someone breeding for fighting dogs in a breed that's 7:3 in favor of DA might end out with, say, a 9:1 distribution in their pups. Someone trying to breed out aggression may get the distribution down below 5:5.

"As such, whether or not someone else's APBT plays the harmonica while jumping through hoops of fire and juggling has no bearing on my particular dogs particular characteristics, even if selecting a dog from the breed with the aforementioned characteristics is more probable than not."

You don't tabulate the odds after the lotto draw. As you state, after you draw, your chances are 1/1 of having what you have.

[geo]

If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic.

Then slow down. Instead of being committed to disagreeing with me, try a commitment to thinking carefully before you post. Those statements do not contradict each other.

As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

Doesn't interest me what others do. I evaluate what's said based on it's merit, not on how much support it draws from others.

How bloody rude are you?

How about you try a commitment to not patronising people you disagree with Lo Pan and take a break from dismissive comments designed to make you sound more intellecutal than others. It would be a nice change for you.

You chose to start this "argument" by marking smart arse comments about my posts and you've disagreed with every point I've made (pretty rudely) while refusing to engage with facts, Why don't the two statements conflict?? How about some explanation rather than yet another assertion that a poster is not your equal.

Comprehension is not evaluation. The fact you may not understand my points doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you "right". Merit has jack sh*t to do with it if you're misunderstanding me and somewhat deliberately it seems.

If you cannot see the conflict between this

it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another

and this:

an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply.

then I give up. How can no probabilities apply to the characteristics of an individual dog of an individual breed if some traits occur more commonly in some breeds than others??

That's it from me. It's clear you're more interested in mocking me than explaining your postion.

Sayonara

I see both your points... I was born in an area with high crime, the majority of crime was committed by people from a certain area... so many factors come into play that you can't assume that just because someone is more "probable" to commit a crime from that area that they will do so, so we shouldn't cast aspersions over all of them, thus making both statements true to a certain extent.(take that person out of that area and the chance they will offend becomes less... see my point?) Every dog is different and will behave differently because of genetics and because of external influencing factors etc.. etc... I don't think this is a discussion that could prove one point over the other in it's entirety, having seen so many litter mates with varying traits but also similar ones..

[Are You Serious Jo]

It is an incorrect use of probability anyway because each lolly/dog is not independent. Lollies are not comparable to dogs because within each breed there are common traits where as lollies are basically incapable of reproducing :laugh:

[Kavik]

But people in those areas are not being specifically bred to commit crimes are they?

People have specifically bred dogs for certain traits - that is why there are different breeds! They were chosen originally because they showed the traits needed for a particular job/task and this has been selected for over time, making some traits more likely in some breeds than others.

[LizT]

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

Bullcrap. With ANY dog comes great responsibility.

Every breed should be responsibly owned, regardless of power. Maybe then we won't be seeing so many unsocialised, untrained, yappy, aggressive, fearful dogs of all breeds.

Can't agree. In fact I think it's a cop out for those that own or support the retention of dangerous dogs to say they have no more responsibility than anyone else. There's standard dog owner responsibility, and then there's a few extra and extremely important things you need to do if you own a powerful dogs.

I see the Banyule Council mayor has said they were 3 pit bulls. So those that attacked the media for incorrect reporting of it being a pitbull attack can apologise now, but it may also snow in hell.

Well duh, it goes without saying that ALL dog owners have an onus for being responsible. But not all dogs are created equal. Eg. Some breeds have a far higher prey drive than others, some need far more stimulation and are more suited as working dogs rather than companion dogs, some require far more intensive fencing than other breeds do, eg. Malamutes and Huskys. You can't generalise these things. One size does not fit all.

[Diva]

But people in those areas are not being specifically bred to commit crimes are they?

People have specifically bred dogs for certain traits - that is why there are different breeds! They were chosen originally because they showed the traits needed for a particular job/task and this has been selected for over time, making some traits more likely in some breeds than others.

Exactly.

If I want a dog to stay with and guard stock, I don't look at individuals within the Beagle breed.

And while the occasional terrier may herd, it's not where I look for a yard dog.

[geo]

But people in those areas are not being specifically bred to commit crimes are they?

People have specifically bred dogs for certain traits - that is why there are different breeds! They were chosen originally because they showed the traits needed for a particular job/task and this has been selected for over time, making some traits more likely in some breeds than others.

I agree, and not all breeders are breeding for the same traits. I have yet to meet a pitbull breeder breeding for DA, contradictory to the common belief that just because someone is a Bogan BYB they all want a dog that will be DA/HA.

[Are You Serious Jo]

They don't have to selectively breed for it, the DA trait is already there in a lot of pitbulls. If I was a pitbull enthusiast I'd be really pissed at the bogan element that do want HA dogs because those few that do breed for it (or rather don't breed to eliminate it in some cases) have a major impact. They are the ones doing the damage.

[Sheridan]

1345086758[/url]' post='5931020']

1345085044[/url]' post='5930992']

But people in those areas are not being specifically bred to commit crimes are they?

People have specifically bred dogs for certain traits - that is why there are different breeds! They were chosen originally because they showed the traits needed for a particular job/task and this has been selected for over time, making some traits more likely in some breeds than others.

Exactly.

If I want a dog to stay with and guard stock, I don't look at individuals within the Beagle breed.

And while the occasional terrier may herd, it's not where I look for a yard dog.

I would.

[melzawelza]

I agree that breed/genetics influence the likelihood of certain behaviours in individuals in that breed. I also hear what Lo Pan is saying.

A lot of people are discussing the fact that the purpose of a breed will shape their behaviour and I agree. But we have to remember that the 'purpose' of bull breeds (i.e fighting other dogs) has been illegal for many many years. Sure, there are still people out there fighting their dogs and therefore selecting dogs for this purpose. But (particularly in this country) they are an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the amount of bull breeds that are around.

So these breeds have not been overwhelmingly selected for such traits for a very very long time.

A dog wanting to kill other dogs is quite unnatural and that trait only has a heritability of around 20% in pups. So even those rigorously selecting for those traits will not get overwhelming success. When you stop breeding for these traits they are lost very quickly as these traits are quite simply counterproductive genetic-wise.

So while I will be the first to agree that bull breeds can be more narky, reactive etc towards other dogs, this trait is a lot less common than it once was overall. There are masses and masses of sooky la la bull breeds out there that would never start a fight and a lot that also won't fight back if attacked too. The DA is being watered down considerably and will continue to be as long as people aren't selecting for it.

Yes, bull breeds as a whole can be more narky with other dogs, but I would argue that the incidence of DA in 'fighting' breeds is much lower than other breeds that are still performing the task they were bred to do regularly (lets say herding breeds) and regularly being selected for such traits.

I hope that makes sense.

[Kavik]

Poor breeding practices could easily lead to reactivity, if you aren't selecting for good temperament you may get poor temperament - and since it is ILLEGAL to breed pit bulls in this country, and has been for a while, I would certainly question the breeding practices and quality of those being bred.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

How can no probabilities apply to the characteristics of an individual dog of an individual breed if some traits occur more commonly in some breeds than others??

I have explained it. Of course I'm happy to try and explain things again, but only if there's a genuine spirit of inquiry, not in response to belligerence. Having said that, I'm not sure how I can be much clearer.

The reason many of your comments have gone un-addressed (and that goes for a few by others as well) is because they're straw men./non sequiturs. For example, insistence that particular behavioural trends exist among particular breeds when considered as a whole, while true, is periphery to the issue at hand. The fact that people agree it's true and think it's relevant to the discussion or that it constitutes a successful argument dis-inclines me that much further from re-explaining my position.

I'm leaving the discussion, as it doesn't appear constructive.

[melzawelza]

Poor breeding practices could easily lead to reactivity, if you aren't selecting for good temperament you may get poor temperament - and since it is ILLEGAL to breed pit bulls in this country, and has been for a while, I would certainly question the breeding practices and quality of those being bred.

It's not illegal in the ACT or the NT.

But I hear what you're saying and fundamentally I agree, but in practice it doesn't seem to be the case. Of all the dogs I've met that have been called 'pit bulls' by their owners or seem to closely fit the 'red nose pit bull' type in pounds and shelters (of which I've probably met a hundred or so over the years), they have absolutely overwhelmingly been lovely dogs that are at the bare minimum dog tolerant or even as far as dog friendly. I'm not really trying to make a point with that comment, just that it's quite interesting.

[Kavik]

I have met a couple that were dog aggro, one that the owner who is experienced with protection dogs took on as a pup to show how they can turn out when trained properly, and it killed at least one of her dogs and mauled a couple of others. And this is an experienced person who does not tolerate dog aggression in her dogs.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Kavik

[Are You Serious Jo]

A trait that is non-adaptive like DA will quickly be lost in a wild population, but we aren't talking about populations that are under natural selection. They are subject to artificial selection since nearly all mating opportunities are managed by people. I'm sure there are people out there selecting for non DA behaviours but there are also a lot of dickheads who are proud of the fact their dog is a killing machine and they breed them. They don't have to be actually participating in dog fights, they just enjoy having a "tough" dog.

[mantis]

I have met a couple that were dog aggro, one that the owner who is experienced with protection dogs took on as a pup to show how they can turn out when trained properly, and it killed at least one of her dogs and mauled a couple of others. And this is an experienced person who does not tolerate dog aggression in her dogs.

Cool story Bro.